Wild Trout Stream Survey

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave wrote:

RLeeP wrote:
It's been a few years and I could have it messed up, but if I recall correctly, this was not entirely a volitional action on the Commission's part. If I remember right, they got involved in a real dilly of a legal wrangle over a proposed landfill somewhere near Brockway. And I believe one of the things that came out of this was a court decision saying that this information had to be published under the Sunshine Law.

So, I'm not sure it can be said that they made a "mistake" here. I don't think they had many options.

Rob, I only said that I feel it was a mistake. i didn't say who's mistake. :-D

What RLeeP says makes sense. I know that there have been problems for developers with the endangered species act, in that they may invest a lot of money in land for future development and then find out afterwards that there is a population of endangered turtles or something there, and they can lose a lot of money. The same thing could happen with Class A streams if a develper like a quarry or landfill isn't aware of it beforehand, since these are Exceptional Value streams that can have restrictions on discharges.

 

[FarmerDave]

Very good Jack. You are very skilled.

We both seem to "recognize there may be certain influences that might interfere with them doing a completely honest and fair job of managing the resources entrusted to their care."

I even agree with this "I don't believe they falsify data," They don't have to.

But this part is really good.

"nor do I think they are half as inclined to seek and find evidence which only supports some preconceived notion of proper fisheries management as are some of those here who think they know better."

I guess we agree. At least to some degree. Breaking that statement down ... What it says is you agree that they are inclined to seek and find evidence which only supports some preconceived notion .. " You just don't think they are half as inclined as some of us think. Could be more, could be less, just not half as [color=CC0000]some [/color] of us believe. At the same time, you are making it look like you don't agree. That's pretty good, Jack. You should be a Lawyer. :-D

The fisheries managers are employed full-time.

Exactly. they are employed by the PF&BC. They are not independant. It is a business, doing internal "studies" on how they are doing. what would happen of a few of them went on record to say that the management sucks.

 

[Wulff-Man]

LehighRegular wrote:
This past Saturday, I drove buy a stream that holds a decent population of wild trout. This stretch is NOT stocked...but it is above and below it. I saw Three (3) cars there on opening day. In all my years (13) living near this stream I have never seen that many cars at this one stretch of water. I could see at least 4 fisherman fishing.

The most I have ever seen at this stretch of water was one car and I know the angler who fishes it.

But, as Jack would say, this observation doesn't prove anything. It's possible that they are C&R fishermen who were trying to avoid the crowds on the stocked streams. Or maybe they didn't know it wasn't a stocked section. Of course it's also possible that they wanted to eat some wild fish, and that's why they were there the first thing on opening day, to get theirs before they were gone. In any event, you would have to see them carrying around dead trout to know if they were harvesting them.

 

[FarmerDave]

I agree, WM. Although it took me a few seconds to figure out what volitional action meant, I wasn't disagreeing with RLP. :lol:

Sounded logical. I often wondered about that (as in what were they thinking???). Now i don't have to anymore.

 

[JackM]

FarmerDave wrote:
But this part is really good.

"nor do I think they are half as inclined to seek and find evidence which only supports some preconceived notion of proper fisheries management as are some of those here who think they know better."

I guess we agree. At least to some degree. Breaking that statement down ... What it says is you agree that they are inclined to seek and find evidence which only supports some preconceived notion .. " You just don't think they are half as inclined as some of us think. Could be more, could be less, just not half as [color=CC0000]some [/color] of us believe. At the same time, you are making it look like you don't agree. That's pretty good, Jack. You should be a Lawyer. :-D

I said "... as are some of those here..." not "... as do some of those here..." making the likely antecedent of "as are" the "seek[ing] and find[ing]" rather than the "think[ing]." So maybe we don't agree because what I said is that "some of those here are at least twice as inclined [as the PFBC managers] to seek and find evidence supporting their preconceptions....

The fisheries managers are employed full-time.

Exactly. they are employed by the PF&BC. They are not independant. It is a business, doing internal "studies" on how they are doing. what would happen of a few of them went on record to say that the management sucks.

[/quote]

I don't think it is just a question of "how are we doing" for them. I think it is a question of how to best do it. There may be a built in bias that favors the status quo, but I think when findings support a change of course, they are willing to follow the evidence.

I do enjoy advocacy of behalf of the devil, but I don't want to be mistaken about what I favor or what I believe. At the same time, I think it is useful to keep things in perspective. Sometimes the available evidence supports one's beliefs and sometimes it refutes them. When it refutes them, or even just calls them into reasonable dispute, I think a better reaction is to conduct a better study, rather than sticking our fingers in our ears and voicing the "LaLaLaLaLa I can't hear you."

 

[TimMurphy]

FarmerDave wrote:
Very good Jack. You are very skilled.

"nor do I think they are half as inclined to seek and find evidence which only supports some preconceived notion of proper fisheries management as are some of those here who think they know better."

I guess we agree. At least to some degree. Breaking that statement down ... What it says is you agree that they are inclined to seek and find evidence which only supports some preconceived notion .. " You just don't think they are half as inclined as some of us think. Could be more, could be less, just not half as [color=CC0000]some [/color] of us believe. At the same time, you are making it look like you don't agree. That's pretty good, Jack. You should be a Lawyer. :-D

Dear Dave,

In all seriousness how can you possibly read Jack's quote as you are explaining it? Jack isn't commenting about the biologists. He is commenting about the people on the board with no training and nothing but anecdotal evidence and word of mouth from like minded friends that think they know how to manage fisheries better than people who are professionally trained in the fisheries biology field.

What Jack is saying is that the F&BC biologists are not inclined to seek evidence solely to prove a point unlike the self professed amateur wild trout experts on this board.

That is what he is saying.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:


I do enjoy advocacy of behalf of the devil, but I don't want to be mistaken about what I favor or what I believe. At the same time, I think it is useful to keep things in perspective. Sometimes the available evidence supports one's beliefs and sometimes it refutes them. When it refutes them, or even just calls them into reasonable dispute, I think a better reaction is to conduct a better study, rather than sticking our fingers in our ears and voicing the "LaLaLaLaLa I can't hear you."

I see. So now you are saying the PF&BC is the devil??? :lol:

Just so you know, I think we are in agreement (for the most part). Except of course for the part about the PF&BC being the devil. I would never say such a thing. I was just playing the other sided. I'm sure you knew that.

 

[FarmerDave]

TimMurphy wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:
Very good Jack. You are very skilled.

"nor do I think they are half as inclined to seek and find evidence which only supports some preconceived notion of proper fisheries management as are some of those here who think they know better."

I guess we agree. At least to some degree. Breaking that statement down ... What it says is you agree that they are inclined to seek and find evidence which only supports some preconceived notion .. " You just don't think they are half as inclined as some of us think. Could be more, could be less, just not half as [color=CC0000]some [/color] of us believe. At the same time, you are making it look like you don't agree. That's pretty good, Jack. You should be a Lawyer. :-D

Dear Dave,

In all seriousness how can you possibly read Jack's quote as you are explaining it? Jack isn't commenting about the biologists. He is commenting about the people on the board with no training and nothing but anecdotal evidence and word of mouth from like minded friends that think they know how to manage fisheries better than people who are professionally trained in the fisheries biology field.

What Jack is saying is that the F&BC biologists are not inclined to seek evidence solely to prove a point unlike the self professed amateur wild trout experts on this board.

That is what he is saying.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

Tim, you must be reading between the lines. Read the quotes again, and my comments. I think I explained it pretty well. He didn't say they were "not inclined". He said he didn't think they were half as inclined as some of us think. The way he worded it, it could imply that the possibility of some inclination exists. It's right up there with it depends on what your definition if "is" is.

Besides, I don't recall expressing that I was "all" serious. I didn't even say i was half serious. I didn't even say I was not half as serious as some of the people on this thread. :lol:

and stop calling me dear!!! :-D

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
My license fees each year go to support an agency that is staffed with qualified scientists and fisheries managers. While I recognize there may be certain influences that might interfere with them doing a completely honest and fair job of managing the resources entrusted to their care, I don't believe they falsify data, nor do I think they are half as inclined to seek and find evidence which only supports some preconceived notion of proper fisheries management as are some of those here who think they know better.

The fisheries managers are employed full-time. If all that was needed to understand the impact of various events on the streams was to go fishing 50-100 days a year, I would think they'd all rather do that instead.

I may or may not make some observations on opening day, but if I do, you will hear from me whether it supports any preconception I have or whether it refutes it. In the meanwhile, since you'd like to press me to complete your homework assignment, are you going to complete mine by designing a study and requesting a grant to carry it out? Just make sure that the sampling method you choose is something more scientific than whether a trout decides to mistake the imitation on the end of your leader for food.

I will report my observations in the same way. It may be that things are different in different regions, which is why I hope people will make these observations in various areas. I've been doing this for quite a while, and the usage and harvest is surprisingly high, but I've only checked things out in NC and CC PA.

This isn't a homework assignment, it's voluntary of course, but people seem to have a great deal of interest and strong opinions about this topic, why not go out and see?

You really can learn a very great deal by going out to the streams. Experienced anglers have always contributed a great deal to fisheries knowledge. Many people in the agencies recognize that, since they have received a lot of new information from angler's observations.

The study you discussed sounds interesting. I have no resources to bring about such a study.

 

[Bamboozle]

In regards to the intentional or accidental disclosure of the Class A list:

Essentially there wasn't a published list per se, until Operation Future, the large scale Wild Trout Management program that began in the early 1980's though the efforts of the Division of Fisheries; headed by Delano Graff.

After the roll out of Operation Future; it was possible to get a paper Class A list from the then PA Fish Commission that listed Class A waters by stream NAME, not section. I have a copy of that typed list in front of me and it only has 99 streams on it with MANY notable omissions.

Later the Fish Commission published a stream map similar to the on-line versions of today that showed not only ATW but the Class A streams highlighted as well. I can remember vividly chasing down the "blue" streams on that map. The same map was also included in the PA Angler magazine. I can't recall when the first Class A list by section appeared but I think the listing of Class A streams was more a result of Operation Future than due to any legal requirements as the result of litigation or developers.

The Fish Commission also printed a three part series titled, "Wild Trout Management in Pennsylvania" written by Delano R. Graff and published in the Pennsylvania Angler in three subsequent issues - April 1982, May 1982 and June 1982. While I can't speak as to whether the criteria used at the inception of Operation Future to determine Class A or "Wild Trout" waters is the same today; the article is very informative and explains the process used to determine Class A waters including biomass, stream size, and social habitat along with recommended management.

I don't know if this article is available any longer from the PA Angler & Boater but if you can track it down; it is a worthwhile read. You might want to contact Art Michaels the editor for a copy if the information is still considered valid.

 

[troutbert]

I also remember when articles about wild trout used to appear in the PA Angler. That seems like so long ago....

Some of the younger guys on this board probably weren't even born yet back then.

 

[FarmerDave]

That explains a lot. I was living out of state back then, and after i moved back, A fishing buddy (who was also a deputy fish cop) gave me a list of "wilderness trout streams". A couple streams that were on that sheet are not on the current list, but I'm sure there were new ones added.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Bamboozle wrote:
After the roll out of Operation Future; it was possible to get a paper Class A list from the then PA Fish Commission that listed Class A waters by stream NAME, not section.

It occurred to me that back then you couldn't have anything but a paper list. So if you became aware somehow that they existed and wanted one you had to send a stamped envelope and typed or handwritten letter to the PFBC to request it, or I suppose you could call them (on your land line phone). Then you could wait for a week or 2 (at best) in great anticipation of receiving the typed list. At some later time you could have picked up a copy of the PA Angler magazine for the printed maps, but you would have to know they were in there and make the effort to go get the magazine. Makes you realize how easy it is to get information today, and the impact it can have. I'm sure glad it's not like the "old" days and that I can get the information so easily, but it can have a downside I guess.

 

[Bamboozle]

Ahhhh yes, the good old days of typewriters, SASE, and REAL phones!

I like to refer to it as BC as in Before Crowds...

...and AD as in After Da internet.

 

[LehighRegular]

But, as Jack would say, this observation doesn't prove anything. It's possible that they are C&R fishermen who were trying to avoid the crowds on the stocked streams. Or maybe they didn't know it wasn't a stocked section. Of course it's also possible that they wanted to eat some wild fish, and that's why they were there the first thing on opening day, to get theirs before they were gone. In any event, you would have to see them carrying around dead trout to know if they were harvesting them.

Well.....an angler doesnt have to impact a fishery by harvesting fish alone. There is a such thing as angling mortality and that can come to any size fish. Do we have to get into the stats on this again??

Based on the day, location, and the fact that this stretch is rarely fished, it is highly suspect that these fisherman where fishing bait and wanting to keep a few legal fish if they caught them. Is that enough evidence to convict them??? :lol:

Yes..anything is possible and maybe they didnt creel a fish and used single barbless artificial lures or even flies....but I would put the odds in favor of these paticular anglers wanting to harvest some trout, using bait and impacting the fishery in some form or another. Just some anglers impact fisheries to a higher degree than others.

 

[Mike]

Wulff-man,

Believe what you wish about the wild trout creel survey, but I can tell you that top professionals in their fields (fisheries, economics, statistics) from Penn State and now the Univ. of Colorado were integrally involved in the design and analysis from day one. This was no small-time study and you are absolutely right that the results will provide serious guidance for quite some time. Again, belive what you will about the study, but don't believe that anglers avoid the creel census takers. I have supervised many individuals on creel surveys and I have done the leg-work myself on many occasions. Anglers are not prone to walk or run away, regardless of their (legal) fishing technique. I have never had that happen; nor have my clerks. You might ask, "how would you know?" Simply this...we generally see anglers before they see us because they are busy with their fishing. We are looking for them; they are not looking for us. Furthermore, most of my staff are more fleet afoot than most anglers. I have interviewed people from all walks of life on creel surveys and the vast majority are more than glad to provide information, even when they are fishing illegally. Yes, we have even had anglers readily show us their sublegal bass.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Mike,

What do you know? You do this for a living instead of just talking about it on an internet message board so you obviously have no bearing in this discussion. :-D

Good luck trying to convince these folks with facts! They all know more than you can ever hope to know about trout fishing in PA.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[Wulff-Man]

Mike,

It makes sense to me what you say about anglers freely giving up information to the surveyors, and I never really thought that was a big issue. But I do wonder about the effect that just a few harvesters can have on many wild trout streams, and whether they where proportionately "caught" by the surveyors. Not that they were avoiding them, just that they may not have been a proportionate part of the random sample because there are relatively few of them.

In any event, I hope that the experts were right.

 

[FarmerDave]

Fleet afoot??? You are doing a survery, not busting a crack house.

Mike wrote:
Wulff-man,

... Again, belive what you will about the study, but don't believe that anglers avoid the creel census takers.

First you say believe what you want, then you tell me what not to believe??? that's interesting. :lol:

I have supervised many individuals on creel surveys and I have done the leg-work myself on many occasions. Anglers are not prone to walk or run away, regardless of their (legal) fishing technique. I have never had that happen; nor have my clerks. You might ask, "how would you know?" Simply this...we generally see anglers before they see us because they are busy with their fishing. We are looking for them; they are not looking for us. Furthermore, most of my staff are more fleet afoot than most anglers. I have interviewed people from all walks of life on creel surveys and the vast majority are more than glad to provide information, even when they are fishing illegally. Yes, we have even had anglers readily show us their sublegal bass.

For the record Mike, I was only joking about that part. I believe you when you say most people practice C&R in wild streams. That has been my experience as well, and I feel the numbers are getting better on the stocked streams as well. If you are doing a creel survey, and I am fishing within the law (wasn't always the case in my younger days) ... You bet, I will be more than happy to provide information. I'll agree that that is the norm. However, if I am breaking the law, I'm not going to volenteer that fact during a creel survey. Anyone who would do that is an idiot. Like I say, the world is full of idiots, and there goes one. Are you really going to chase after people who simply walk away when they see you coming? During a stream survey??? If I'm breaking the law, chances are extremely good that the average WCO isn't going to see me breaking the law. ... and i won't have to run away. Whether hunting or fishing, I haven't done anything like that in many years and won't dintentionally break the fish or game laws again. But mainly because it is too easy and is way more of a challenge to do things legal.

Here is the only question I have at this time.

Did you do any of the studies of the effect of harvest on the small less fertile NWPA streams where you would be waiting for days to survey a single creel, or were they all done on the more popular class As. To me, a 6 meter wide native brook strout steam would be quite large, and probably non existant in NWPA (vecause they all get stocked). I haven't read the whole study. I feel that all streams can handle some harvest with little or no noticable effect on even the short term, but some can handle more than others. Your study backs that up. I'm just wondering how broad the study was in terms of stream type, size, location, etc.

Would you please provide a link for more information. I know it has been provided before, but just asking if you would provide it again. I'd like to review the data. I'm sure it would answer my question.

 

[TWEEK]

Well here is my 2 cents....Brookies have survived for a very long long long long long long time. Way before we were around.....i think if they can withstand pressure from Dino's then i think humans won't be a problem....when you find a good stream just keep it to yourself and be cool about it....the people that respect brookies won't give away thier position and will conserve.....yes there are those people out there that like to kill every trout in sight, but i think "we" out number them....studies are studies and stats are stats, but brookies outsmart both...i have faith in my fellow flyfisherman, unless proven otherwise.